I hate to have another swr thread

Financial Independence/Retire Early -- Learn How!
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

I hate to have another swr thread

Post by ataloss »

but this sums up my outlook on swr approaches

It is a serious mistake to rely on either the historical sequence approach or a Monte Carlo model by itself. Both approaches have something to add.


from the excellent proto-FAQ by JWR1945 back in Nov. 02

http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic ... t=faq#p725
Have fun.

Ataloss
WiseNLucky
** Regular
Posts: 84
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Florida

Post by WiseNLucky »

but this sums up my outlook on swr approaches

It is a serious mistake to rely on either the historical sequence approach or a Monte Carlo model by itself. Both approaches have something to add.


And then add the WiseNLucky' postulate: "Once you have an answer, and have calculated your 'magic number,' go ahead and add some more to your portfolio"

Ever conservative I am :?
WiseNLucky

I just wish everyone could step back and get less car and less house then they want, and realize they don't NEED more. -- NeuroFool
Cut-Throat
* Rookie
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Cut-Throat »

As soon as someone on these forums proposes a SWR of a certain percentage - someone seems to post some 'evidence' that says this may not be safe at all.

And you know zero may not even be safe! - Inflation could go to 2000% like it did in Argentina and your nest egg could be wiped out even though you don't invest in the Stock market. All your money invested in CD's, T-Bills and Savings Bonds.

We can spend our entire retirement trying to figure out how we'll be 'safe' forever - Or we can choose to not live in fear and enjoy retirement.

This retirement planning takes a balanced approach like everything else in life. The facts are no one can predict the future, so we try to look at the past. Whether it is investing or weather forecasting. One can look at the average temperatures in the US and predict that next month the temp will be in the 70,s and 80's.

But - The Sun could move closer to the earth in some random stellar accident and the temp could soar to over 300 degrees and us and our portfolios could all fry to death! -- The Horror!

Man Plans and God laughs.
User avatar
BenSolar
*** Veteran
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:46 am
Location: Western NC

Post by BenSolar »

Cut-Throat wrote: As soon as someone on these forums proposes a SWR of a certain percentage - someone seems to post some 'evidence' that says this may not be safe at all.


I've been guilty of that, I know. And I enjoy some of the research we've been doing, while others likely are quickly tired of it. (I could do without the wheel spinning that has also happened.) On the other hand, I'm not sweating it in real life. I think that you get broadly diversified, lean away from asset classes that your research indicates are significantly overvalued, and take 4 - 5% or so.

I like pursuing new angles and avenues. Intellectually stimulating. :)
"Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for." - Epicurus
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

Cut-Throat
As soon as someone on these forums proposes a SWR of a certain percentage - someone seems to post some 'evidence' that says this may not be safe at all.

We have turned that around. The numbers are now going up.

Have fun.

John R.
Cut-Throat
* Rookie
Posts: 27
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2003 3:00 am
Location: Minneapolis

Post by Cut-Throat »

We have turned that around. The numbers are now going up.




Thank God ! - Now we can have some fun! Is this cause the market may not lose money this year? :D
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

The numbers are now going up.


I am glad that progress is being made. I think your new approach is interesting. At the risk of being flamed, I think you are doing a great job :wink: I will be interested to see how you make a case for validity of a data mined approach. Not always easy from what I understand.
Have fun.

Ataloss
raddr
*** Veteran
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:25 am
Contact:

Post by raddr »

ataloss wrote:
The numbers are now going up.


I am glad that progress is being made.


Me too. I'll monitor the SWR research board but I won't participate there unless ES replaces hocus as the moderator, particularly after reading the bizarre hocus post chastising one of our best posters (wanderer) this morning for no good reason. :?
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 6:46 am

Post by peteyperson »

I'm glad someone said this too. I feel the same way but I'm holding off on a final decison as I think John R will make the board worthwhile despite the challenges.

Petey
raddr wrote: Me too. I'll monitor the SWR research board but I won't participate there unless ES replaces hocus as the moderator, particularly after reading the bizarre hocus post chastising one of our best posters (wanderer) this morning for no good reason. :?
[KenM]
*** Veteran
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:54 am

Post by [KenM] »

...... but I won't participate there unless ES replaces hocus as the moderator

I once made a somewhat silly (but hopefully light hearted) remark to BenSolar that, as an ironical Brit, I had yet to find a good example of American irony.

We now have hocus in charge of a board on SWR Research :D
On that board jwr recommends that you read everything on intercst's web site www.retireearlyhomepage.com and that you pay intercst $5 to download the full REHP report. (peteyperson then looks a bit non-plussed ... I tend to associate it with intercst's information and invalidate it automatically in my mind. ) :D

I unreservedly withdraw my remark to BenSolar. This surpasses anything I could ever think of.
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
User avatar
BenSolar
*** Veteran
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:46 am
Location: Western NC

Post by BenSolar »

peteyperson wrote:
raddr wrote: Me too. I'll monitor the SWR research board but I won't participate there unless ES replaces hocus as the moderator, particularly after reading the bizarre hocus post chastising one of our best posters (wanderer) this morning for no good reason. :?
I'm glad someone said this too. I feel the same way but I'm holding off on a final decison as I think John R will make the board worthwhile despite the challenges.

A stunning display :shock:

It's had me chuckling all day, I have to admit. :lol:

I don't know how to make heads or tails of what exactly is going on, but it makes an interesting cyber-melodrama. I suspect I will get sick of the BS at some point and not play anymore over there. But I might give it a bit more of a chance, or I might not. :?
"Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for." - Epicurus
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

ataloss
I am glad that progress is being made. I think your new approach is interesting. At the risk of being flamed, I think you are doing a great job. <b.I will be interested to see how you make a case for validity of a data mined approach. Not always easy from what I understand.

I need to have an example of something that is not a data mined approach. It will make my explanation much easier. There is a whole lot of theory underneath.

You should never depend upon numbers by themselves. There should always be a theoretical foundation.

Have fun.

John R.
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

KenM
We now have hocus in charge of a board on SWR Research :D
On that board jwr recommends that you read everything on intercst's web site www.retireearlyhomepage.com and that you pay intercst $5 to download the full REHP report. (peteyperson then looks a bit non-plussed ... I tend to associate it with intercst's information and invalidate it automatically in my mind. ) :D

You got it wrong. You imputed thoughts and opinions that do not exist. I have made this recommendation all along. Not only do I recommend downloading the report (it only cost $5.00) but hocus has endorsed that recommendation for a long time. It goes back almost to May 13, 2002.

It is a fine report. It is useful as a stand alone document. Where you run into trouble is in the claims based upon that report. Many such claims are outrageous. But the report it self is very much worth reading. It contains some valuable information. hocus has said similar things many times in the past. Again, it has to do with the application of the study, not the study itself. Let's not lose our objectivity.

Have fun.

John R.
User avatar
BenSolar
*** Veteran
Posts: 242
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 5:46 am
Location: Western NC

Post by BenSolar »

KenM wrote: I unreservedly withdraw my remark to BenSolar. This surpasses anything I could ever think of.


LOL :lol:

That's funny.

JWR, just joking around a little bit, eh?
"Do not spoil what you have by desiring what you have not; remember that what you now have was once among the things only hoped for." - Epicurus
[KenM]
*** Veteran
Posts: 133
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2003 12:54 am

Post by [KenM] »

jwr
You got it wrong. You imputed thoughts and opinions that do not exist. I have made this recommendation all along
Sorry if you think I implied that you have changed your own opinions - I'm fully aware that you have always recommended the REHP report :).
I have considerable doubts that hocus would recommend the report, though - in his own words the report is invalid and anyway he only read it once in 1999 - the report has been considerably updated since then - and would hocus recommend paying intercst $5 for the report?
It is a fine report.
Agreed
Where you run into trouble is in the claims based upon that report.
Agreed
Many such claims are outrageous.
Fully agreed - but also many claims made against the report are similarly outrageous
Let's not lose our objectivity
Even more fully agreed - if that applies to all of us :)
Last edited by [KenM] on Sat Jul 26, 2003 3:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
KenM
Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

You got it wrong. You imputed thoughts and opinions that do not exist. I have made this recommendation all along. Not only do I recommend downloading the report (it only cost $5.00) but hocus has endorsed that recommendation for a long time. It goes back almost to May 13, 2002.

It is a fine report. It is useful as a stand alone document. Where you run into trouble is in the claims based upon that report. Many such claims are outrageous. But the report it self is very much worth reading. It contains some valuable information. hocus has said similar things many times in the past. Again, it has to do with the application of the study, not the study itself. Let's not lose our objectivity.


JWR I have to object to this (in a forum where my post can't be deleted for lack of groupthink.)

I have devoted 6 months of my life to arguing with hocus that Trinity and REHP were valid studies but that fully accepting that application of the resultant number to the future was questionable. Clearly I am an idiot for making the point repeatedly to hocus as if the same hadn't been done endlessly on REHP until his abrupt exit from that forum.

You said:
ataloss has confused the definition of Safe Withdrawal Rates with their context and applications. It is quite difficult to come up with a useful and precise definition. It is critically important to avoid a variety of pathological cases. The points of contention have already been addressed. 7/22


I said:
Here we differ. I maintain that the trinity study, rehp study and others were valid (that is they contain no errors) but that with changes in expected returns mean that we should not blindly apply these historically safe withdrawal rates to the future. 7/22


*************************************************************
Not only do I recommend downloading the report (it only cost $5.00) but hocus has endorsed that recommendation for a long time.


hocus, have you actually read any of the original studies?
I read the intercst study when I first came to the TMF board in 1999. I haven't read any others since. Hocus 7/19/03

You don't need to read the studies to gain a good sense of how the methodology works. I don't understand the details of how these things are put together. I couldn't put one together myself if you offered me $1 million to do so. But I think I have a good sense of how the conventional methodology works in a conceptual sense. All of my claims are rooted in a belief that the concepts being applied are wrongheaded, not that some particular researcher got a detail wrong here or there. Hocus 7/23/03


I have admitted to not speaking or understanding hocusian discourse. Probably a deficiency on my part. I didn't understand him to be recommending reading the studies.

Then there is this astonishing indication that hocus has no idea of the methodology of the historical studies that he has been criticizing:

What the conventional analysis tells you, I believe, is the average SWR over a long period of time. If you properly calculated all the SWRs for each of the past 100 years, added them together, and then divideded by 100, I believe that the number you would get would be something close to 4. I guess it's good to know that number. But that number is not the SWR as defiined for purposes of SWR analysis.

Hocus 7/21/03
Have fun.

Ataloss
User avatar
ElSupremo
Admin Board Member
Posts: 343
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2002 12:53 pm
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio

Post by ElSupremo »

Greetings ataloss :)
in a forum where my post can't be deleted for lack of groupthink


Now you've done it. :xI haven't heard that word for quite a while and was hoping to never hear it again. :(
"The best things in life are FREE!"

www.nofeeboards.com
User avatar
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 559
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:00 am

Post by ataloss »

in the past the groupthink charge was leveled at the whole board by a visitor. It was unfair.

currently it is the plan on the swr board to enforce groupthink per the moderator's welcome to the board message:
People need to know about the stuff that Bernstein writes about in Chapter Two of the "Four Pillars" book. One of the neat things about being Moderator of this board is that I have the ability to deliver an electric shock to anyone who tries to read posts put to the board without first reading all the words of that chapter with care. Please do not give me cause to make use of this extraordinary power. Read the book, and, when you read it, think about the Deeper Meaning of those words.
Have fun.

Ataloss
raddr
*** Veteran
Posts: 265
Joined: Mon Nov 25, 2002 3:25 am
Contact:

Post by raddr »

ataloss wrote:
currently it is the plan on the swr board to enforce groupthink per the moderator's welcome to the board message:
People need to know about the stuff that Bernstein writes about in Chapter Two of the "Four Pillars" book. One of the neat things about being Moderator of this board is that I have the ability to deliver an electric shock to anyone who tries to read posts put to the board without first reading all the words of that chapter with care. Please do not give me cause to make use of this extraordinary power. Read the book, and, when you read it, think about the Deeper Meaning of those words.


Chilling words, eh? One of the things that makes NFB a great to exchange ideas is the lack of such enforced groupthink. Our fearless leader, ES, allows us to freely post thoughts that he clearly disagrees with. Obviously this is not the case on the SWR research board and I won't be a part of it. Besides, I think the FIRE board is an appropriate venue for the SWR issue and that is where I'll post any future research I do on the subject so that there can be a free exchange of ideas on the topic.
peteyperson
**** Heavy Hitter
Posts: 525
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 6:46 am

Post by peteyperson »

I shall get around to reading intercst's report. I shall then make up my mind on how much of it I accept. My opinion on it has been biased back & forth and I will read it & decide for myself.

Not non-plussed at all, though a lovely turn of phrase by you.

Petey
KenM wrote: peteyperson then looks a bit non-plussed ... I tend to associate it with intercst's information and invalidate it automatically in my mind
Post Reply